White sharia is a blunt meme that seeks to embarrass the West by noting even fuck-tard Islamists are (in some narrow respects) less socially dysfunctional than the left liberal retards.

No one is genuinely considering converting to Islam. Duh.

You can see this in play in the latest Beauty and Beta where they discuss the Islamic criticism of pro-homosexuality lessons in the British class room.

They note the irony that in this narrow specific principled area, they too consider it socially disruptive to push such an agenda. “They get it”. But they also firmly reject Islam as an acceptable world view. And reject its intrusion into western society. They can see, in a way you apparently can’t, the interesting but limited utility of apparent alignment. A crop of stunted trees that disappear against the forest.

I think they coined the term “intersectional paradox” to mean progressives importing and supporting minority Islam which is in turn anti-progressive. With progressives then being caught in the headlights of blowback. But the term could be used in the white sharia context as well.

Maybe you should watch the show.

Your bit starts at 1:50:00 but the whole thing is an interesting “intersection” of liberatarian (Beta) and right leaning alt-lite (Beauty).

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
White sharia is a blunt meme that seeks to embarrass the West by noting even fuck-tard Islamists are (in some narrow respects) less socially dysfunctional than the left liberal retards.

No one is genuinely considering converting to Islam. Duh.

You can see this in play in the latest Beauty and Beta where they discuss the Islamic criticism of pro-homosexuality lessons in the British class room.

They note the irony that in this narrow specific principled area, they too consider it socially disruptive to push such an agenda. “They get it”. But they also firmly reject Islam as an acceptable world view. And reject its intrusion into western society. They can see, in a way you apparently can’t, the interesting but limited utility of apparent alignment. A crop of stunted trees that disappear against the forest.

I think they coined the term “intersectional paradox” to mean progressives importing and supporting minority Islam which is in turn anti-progressive. With progressives then being caught in the headlights of blowback. But the term could be used in the white sharia context as well.

Maybe you should watch the show.

Your bit starts at 1:50:00 but the whole thing is an interesting “intersection” of liberatarian (Beta) and right leaning alt-lite (Beauty).

The progressive support for islam is stupid and counterproductive. We all know that. And we know where it comes from (Critical Race Theory, misguided anti-right eing sentiments, etc.)

"No one is genuinely considering converting to islam" Mike Cernovich is. The former member of a far-right Dutch party already has converted. And there was a former AfD member who came to the same conclusions.

Iran is already hosting events which invite various far-right figures, including a slew of Holocaust denialists.

The common messages are part of a reactionary mindest.

The rejection of islam in the alt-right is mostly tribal, about the "alien" nature of islamic tradition, not about a rejection of reactionary principles.

Perhaps, instead of watching YouTube videos from random Youtubers, you should check out "The Authoritarian Specter" by Robert Altmeyer?

Alternatively, if you think that Altmeyer is too on the left for your tastes (although his works were liked by Richard Nixon of all people), there's the this neuroscience study about gow certain brain structures are correlated to both authoritarian personalities and religious fundamentalism.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
White sharia is a blunt meme that seeks to embarrass the West by noting even fuck-tard Islamists are (in some narrow respects) less socially dysfunctional than the left liberal retards.

No one is genuinely considering converting to Islam. Duh.

You can see this in play in the latest Beauty and Beta where they discuss the Islamic criticism of pro-homosexuality lessons in the British class room.

They note the irony that in this narrow specific principled area, they too consider it socially disruptive to push such an agenda. “They get it”. But they also firmly reject Islam as an acceptable world view. And reject its intrusion into western society. They can see, in a way you apparently can’t, the interesting but limited utility of apparent alignment. A crop of stunted trees that disappear against the forest.

I think they coined the term “intersectional paradox” to mean progressives importing and supporting minority Islam which is in turn anti-progressive. With progressives then being caught in the headlights of blowback. But the term could be used in the white sharia context as well.

Maybe you should watch the show.

Your bit starts at 1:50:00 but the whole thing is an interesting “intersection” of liberatarian (Beta) and right leaning alt-lite (Beauty).

https..://youtu.be/OwSS4dRf1dk

The progressive support for islam is stupid and counterproductive. We all know that. And we know where it comes from (Critical Race Theory, misguided anti-right eing sentiments, etc.)

"No one is genuinely considering converting to islam" Mike Cernovich is. The former member of a far-right Dutch party already has converted. And there was a former AfD member who came to the same conclusions.

Iran is already hosting events which invite various far-right figures, including a slew of Holocaust denialists.

The common messages are part of a reactionary mindest.

The rejection of islam in the alt-right is mostly tribal, about the "alien" nature of islamic tradition, not about a rejection of reactionary principles.

Perhaps, instead of watching YouTube videos from random Youtubers, you should check out "The Authoritarian Specter" by Robert Altmeyer?

Alternatively, if you think that Altmeyer is too on the left for your tastes (although his works were liked by Richard Nixon of all people), there's the this neuroscience study about gow certain brain structures are correlated to both authoritarian personalities and religious fundamentalism.

Anyone from the West who converts to Islam is a broken dolly. And clearly “Blonde” is in no danger of reciting the Shahada.

Re YouTube. Don’t be so elitist as to reject the value of the vox pop.

The vlogcast’s fusion of libertarian and hard alt-lite should be sufficient to interest you as a challenge to your obsession with conservative=totalitarianism. And yes, I’ll have a look at what fuels you.

In a major speech designed to unveil his prospective foreign policy agenda, Trump declares, “’America First’ will be the overriding theme of my administration.” The theme carries echoes of the America First Committee, which lobbied hard against America’s entry into World War II and whose most prominent spokesman was aviator Charles Lindbergh, an avowed anti-Semite.

In a major speech designed to unveil his prospective foreign policy agenda, Trump declares, “’America First’ will be the overriding theme of my administration.” The theme carries echoes of the America First Committee, which lobbied hard against America’s entry into World War II and whose most prominent spokesman was aviator Charles Lindbergh, an avowed anti-Semite.

The argument was about Trump telling the Republican Jewish Coalition that they want to control their politicians. Which is in the article.

Brive1987 wrote: ↑
White sharia is a blunt meme that seeks to embarrass the West by noting even fuck-tard Islamists are (in some narrow respects) less socially dysfunctional than the left liberal retards.

No one is genuinely considering converting to Islam. Duh.

You can see this in play in the latest Beauty and Beta where they discuss the Islamic criticism of pro-homosexuality lessons in the British class room.

They note the irony that in this narrow specific principled area, they too consider it socially disruptive to push such an agenda. “They get it”. But they also firmly reject Islam as an acceptable world view. And reject its intrusion into western society. They can see, in a way you apparently can’t, the interesting but limited utility of apparent alignment. A crop of stunted trees that disappear against the forest.

I think they coined the term “intersectional paradox” to mean progressives importing and supporting minority Islam which is in turn anti-progressive. With progressives then being caught in the headlights of blowback. But the term could be used in the white sharia context as well.

Maybe you should watch the show.

Your bit starts at 1:50:00 but the whole thing is an interesting “intersection” of liberatarian (Beta) and right leaning alt-lite (Beauty).

https..://youtu.be/OwSS4dRf1dk

The progressive support for islam is stupid and counterproductive. We all know that. And we know where it comes from (Critical Race Theory, misguided anti-right eing sentiments, etc.)

"No one is genuinely considering converting to islam" Mike Cernovich is. The former member of a far-right Dutch party already has converted. And there was a former AfD member who came to the same conclusions.

Iran is already hosting events which invite various far-right figures, including a slew of Holocaust denialists.

The common messages are part of a reactionary mindest.

The rejection of islam in the alt-right is mostly tribal, about the "alien" nature of islamic tradition, not about a rejection of reactionary principles.

Perhaps, instead of watching YouTube videos from random Youtubers, you should check out "The Authoritarian Specter" by Robert Altmeyer?

Alternatively, if you think that Altmeyer is too on the left for your tastes (although his works were liked by Richard Nixon of all people), there's the this neuroscience study about gow certain brain structures are correlated to both authoritarian personalities and religious fundamentalism.

Anyone from the West who converts to Islam is a broken dolly. And clearly “Blonde” is in no danger of reciting the Shahada.

Re YouTube. Don’t be so elitist as to reject the value of the vox pop.

The vlogcast’s fusion of libertarian and hard alt-lite should be sufficient to interest you as a challenge to your obsession with conservative=totalitarianism. And yes, I’ll have a look at what fuels you.

I don't believe all conservatives are totalitarian. I talked about the alt-right. Not all conservatives are alt-righters.

Tom Nichols, Cathy Young, David French, the neocons, Joe Walsh, and many others, are all conservatives, and very much hostile to the alt-right. I disagree with them on a lot of issues, sometimes I even think that their projects are potentially dangerous, but I don't think that they're as ideologically reactionary as political islam.

Dick Spencer, the Trad Thots, Vox Day, Goldy, Southern and Dugin are on the authoritarian spectrum.

Good news for conservatives. There is a hot new conservative comedian that really owns libtards. He is almost as funny as Australian comedian Hannah Gatsby and bonus here is an interview with conservative intellectual Faith Goldy. Warning: this video is some pretty funny stuff.

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑
Good news for conservatives. There is a hot new conservative comedian that really owns libtards. He is almost as funny as Australian comedian Hannah Gatsby and bonus here is an interview with conservative intellectual Faith Goldy. Warning: this video is some pretty funny stuff.
https..://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqC2AdesJw4

Faith needs to return to her short form data driven pieces. But while you were on YouTube stakeout duty, you let Jesus get away with the real news on the day.

If the Republicans couldn't find it it can't be there. :lol: Also, it remains to be seen whether some of the people that testified in front of the senate told them the truth. In other news, the OJ Simpson jury found OJ not guilty.

free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑
Good news for conservatives. There is a hot new conservative comedian that really owns libtards. He is almost as funny as Australian comedian Hannah Gatsby and bonus here is an interview with conservative intellectual Faith Goldy. Warning: this video is some pretty funny stuff.

(CNN)Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, rejected Republican Chairman Richard Burr's recent statements that the committee has not found evidence of collusion, saying the investigation is still ongoing and the committee still had to interview key witnesses.

"Respectfully, I disagree," Warner said Tuesday. "I'm not going to get into any conclusions I've reached because my basis of this has been that I'm not going to reach any conclusion until we finish the investigation. And we still have a number of the key witnesses to come back."
Warner's comments represented a rare public split for the leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has been the only congressional panel that has kept its investigation into Russia's 2016 election meddling on a bipartisan track.

I assume you are talking about a 2 sentence byline MSNBC wrote saying:

The Senate Intelligence Committee has found no direct evident of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia as it approaches the end of its investigation into the 2016 election. However, Democratic investigators remained cautious on the "context" of these findings.

The Dems, as I noted have said they haven't yet found direct evidence of collusion but have been clear that their investigation was incomplete and there is plenty of evidence of the possibility that it may yet be proven.
The MSM makes mistakes from time to time and it is wise to be cautious about reports regardless of where they come from, but it is just foolish to suddenly forsake all traditional journalism and unquestioning swallow the internet crackpot conspirators swill.
I would have thought that as an Anglican you would be not so easily duped by a messenger of Satan like Tarl Warwick, the Dark Master of Libtard Pwning. :naughty:

It was the point in the video I posted where at 49-53 seconds in the CNN journalist specifically states that he hunted down relevant Senate Democrats for their view and said Democrats “did not dispute” the view there was no uncovered direct evidence.

The dude couldn’t have been clearer about what he was trying to determine and what the response was.

(CNN)Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, rejected Republican Chairman Richard Burr's recent statements that the committee has not found evidence of collusion, saying the investigation is still ongoing and the committee still had to interview key witnesses.

In context, they are talking about evidence that directly links Trump to collusion in a conclusive way. Also, I have quoted the relevant Democrat where he clearly disputes Burr's statements. Did you somehow miss that? It was only a few posts up.
That 53 second video Trump tweeted was obviously edited, and he is even stopped in mid sentence. At best MSNBC isn't clearing Trump, as he implies in the thank you MSNBC tweet but saying he isn't conclusively been proven to have engaged in a conspiracy. Yet.

(CNN)Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, rejected Republican Chairman Richard Burr's recent statements that the committee has not found evidence of collusion, saying the investigation is still ongoing and the committee still had to interview key witnesses.

In context, they are talking about evidence that directly links Trump to collusion in a conclusive way. Also, I have quoted the relevant Democrat where he clearly disputes Burr's statements. Did you somehow miss that? It was only a few posts up.
That 53 second video Trump tweeted was obviously edited, and he is even stopped in mid sentence. At best MSNBC isn't clearing Trump, as he implies in the thank you MSNBC tweet but saying he isn't conclusively been proven to have engaged in a conspiracy. Yet.

That’s the full clip. Trump was thanking them for the only firmly objective fact in their report. He wasn’t interest in the attempted recovery.

As expected NBC proceed to dance around ‘maybes’ and theoreticals and invoke the great Mueller hope - because they know they are about to be Trumped.

They do accidentally hint at the most likely explaination. There was no collusion. So there is no direct evidence. But there is evidence that low level Republicans demonstrated general naivety. But sadly that’s not impeachable. It’s like finding your big Christmas present was mis-tagged

(CNN)Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, rejected Republican Chairman Richard Burr's recent statements that the committee has not found evidence of collusion, saying the investigation is still ongoing and the committee still had to interview key witnesses.

In context, they are talking about evidence that directly links Trump to collusion in a conclusive way. Also, I have quoted the relevant Democrat where he clearly disputes Burr's statements. Did you somehow miss that? It was only a few posts up.
That 53 second video Trump tweeted was obviously edited, and he is even stopped in mid sentence. At best MSNBC isn't clearing Trump, as he implies in the thank you MSNBC tweet but saying he isn't conclusively been proven to have engaged in a conspiracy. Yet.

That’s the full clip. Trump was thanking them for the only firmly objective fact in their report. He wasn’t interest in the attempted recovery.

As expected NBC proceed to dance around ‘maybes’ and theoreticals and invoke the great Mueller hope - because they know they are about to be Trumped.

They do accidentally hint at the most likely explaination. There was no collusion. So there is no direct evidence. But there is evidence that low level Republicans demonstrated general naivety. But sadly that’s not impeachable. It’s like finding your big Christmas present was mis-tagged

To bad. So sad.

One statement from the Senate intelligence committee doesn't trump everything else we know about the Trump/Russia connection, or his status as an unindicted co conspirator to a federal campaign finance felony. Trump's conduct is already impeachable. I'm sure team degenerate will try to sell the country on the idea that we need a signed contract between Putin and Trump in order for collusion to have occurred, but that's bullshit.

(CNN)Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, rejected Republican Chairman Richard Burr's recent statements that the committee has not found evidence of collusion, saying the investigation is still ongoing and the committee still had to interview key witnesses.

In context, they are talking about evidence that directly links Trump to collusion in a conclusive way. Also, I have quoted the relevant Democrat where he clearly disputes Burr's statements. Did you somehow miss that? It was only a few posts up.
That 53 second video Trump tweeted was obviously edited, and he is even stopped in mid sentence. At best MSNBC isn't clearing Trump, as he implies in the thank you MSNBC tweet but saying he isn't conclusively been proven to have engaged in a conspiracy. Yet.

That’s the full clip. Trump was thanking them for the only firmly objective fact in their report. He wasn’t interest in the attempted recovery.

As expected NBC proceed to dance around ‘maybes’ and theoreticals and invoke the great Mueller hope - because they know they are about to be Trumped.

They do accidentally hint at the most likely explaination. There was no collusion. So there is no direct evidence. But there is evidence that low level Republicans demonstrated general naivety. But sadly that’s not impeachable. It’s like finding your big Christmas present was mis-tagged

To bad. So sad.

https..://youtu.be/a4DKItxvKfU

... I'm sure team degenerate will try to sell the country on the idea that we need a signed contract between Putin and Trump in order for collusion to have occurred, but that's bullshit.

I never realised that “direct evidence” of collusion could be so triggering. We are all waiting with bated breath.

(CNN)Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, rejected Republican Chairman Richard Burr's recent statements that the committee has not found evidence of collusion, saying the investigation is still ongoing and the committee still had to interview key witnesses.

In context, they are talking about evidence that directly links Trump to collusion in a conclusive way. Also, I have quoted the relevant Democrat where he clearly disputes Burr's statements. Did you somehow miss that? It was only a few posts up.
That 53 second video Trump tweeted was obviously edited, and he is even stopped in mid sentence. At best MSNBC isn't clearing Trump, as he implies in the thank you MSNBC tweet but saying he isn't conclusively been proven to have engaged in a conspiracy. Yet.

That’s the full clip. Trump was thanking them for the only firmly objective fact in their report. He wasn’t interest in the attempted recovery.

As expected NBC proceed to dance around ‘maybes’ and theoreticals and invoke the great Mueller hope - because they know they are about to be Trumped.

They do accidentally hint at the most likely explaination. There was no collusion. So there is no direct evidence. But there is evidence that low level Republicans demonstrated general naivety. But sadly that’s not impeachable. It’s like finding your big Christmas present was mis-tagged

To bad. So sad.

https..://youtu.be/a4DKItxvKfU

... I'm sure team degenerate will try to sell the country on the idea that we need a signed contract between Putin and Trump in order for collusion to have occurred, but that's bullshit.

I never realised that “direct evidence” of collusion could be so triggering. We are all waiting with bated breath.

I never realized "triggering" could be so badly overused, reducing it to a word that means "I said something somebody disagrees with, and they said so." You could go to the Aussie equivalent of the VFW, where there will invariably be a support group of people with PTSD. Discuss there the meaning of "triggering," and how it's overuse is degrading the term and people with real issues.

Before you suggest that I'm triggered by your use of "triggered," let me assure you I'm not. I am slightly appalled that a military historian would be callous and frankly insulting of a term that legitimately affects so many real veterans. That SJWs used the word inappropriately really doesn't excuse the rest of us from degrading it further.

I never realised that “direct evidence” of collusion could be so triggering. We are all waiting with bated breath.

I never realized that a BS non acquital in one of several investigations would buoy the spirits of the Trumptards that want so badly to believe that their conman isn't a lying cunt that managed to squeak an electoral win thanks to illegal meddling by a hostile power.
By the way, there is direct evidence of Manafort, at the time the head of the Trump campaign sharing polling data with a Russian agent. Clearly the campaign did collude with Russian agents. Whether Trump knew about it and was complicit hasn't been proven. Yet.
Also remember that the Democrat (Warner) that was the head Democrat on the senate committee did not agree with the conclusion by the Repub Burr.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑
I never realized "triggering" could be so badly overused, reducing it to a word that means "I said something somebody disagrees with, and they said so." You could go to the Aussie equivalent of the VFW, where there will invariably be a support group of people with PTSD. Discuss there the meaning of "triggering," and how it's overuse is degrading the term and people with real issues.

Before you suggest that I'm triggered by your use of "triggered," let me assure you I'm not. I am slightly appalled that a military historian would be callous and frankly insulting of a term that legitimately affects so many real veterans. That SJWs used the word inappropriately really doesn't excuse the rest of us from degrading it further.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑
I never realized "triggering" could be so badly overused, reducing it to a word that means "I said something somebody disagrees with, and they said so." You could go to the Aussie equivalent of the VFW, where there will invariably be a support group of people with PTSD. Discuss there the meaning of "triggering," and how it's overuse is degrading the term and people with real issues.

Before you suggest that I'm triggered by your use of "triggered," let me assure you I'm not. I am slightly appalled that a military historian would be callous and frankly insulting of a term that legitimately affects so many real veterans. That SJWs used the word inappropriately really doesn't excuse the rest of us from degrading it further.

Sigh. No, as I said I'm not triggered. But I found it odd that you'd post a picture of those soldiers a while back, all killed but one and he killed himself on the boat home, likely because of PTSD. Which is the very thing you're mocking. So while your "point scoring" it doesnt say anything about anyone being triggered, it does speak volumes about your character. Although I'm honestly not at all surprised.

I highlighted the bits that justified a challenge of cognitive dissonance.

You’re actually serious about being appalled by the use of “triggered” ?? :bjarte:

Australians tend to manage multiple meanings for words which are context dependant. Take the phrase “you cunt” for instance.

The Pit’s happy embrace of the MH meme demonstrates that your sanctimony probably forms a minority of one. Would it be helpful if I did a word search and compiled a black list of people casually flinging the protected term about? :lol:

Of greater interest:

At 5:00 in “Evidence of collusion might have been a useful thing for you to find ...”

I highlighted the bits that justified a challenge of cognitive dissonance.

You’re actually serious about being appalled by the use of “triggered” ?? :bjarte:

Australians tend to manage multiple meanings for words which are context dependant. Take the phrase “you cunt” for instance.

The Pit’s happy embrace of the MH meme demonstrates that your sanctimony probably forms a minority of one. Would it be helpful if I did a word search and compiled a black list of people casually flinging the protected term about? :lol:

Of greater interest:

At 5:00 in “Evidence of collusion might have been a useful thing for you to find ...”

:dance:

Don't chuck a willie, I'm passingly familiar with Aussie vernacular. Of particular interest is a phrase I heard lately, "Sydney Honour." But more to the point about Trump/Russia-https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/582883/
The anxiousness of Trumpettes to embrace a singular phrase from Burr should be embarrassing. Tragically, it's long past that.

LOL Two years of Republican rule and nothing, and now, after a dem house, Chief Cheeto decides the wall is an emergency.

It's a dangerous precedent.

The next Democratic precedent might decide that global warming is a national emergency, or gun control.

The GOP is being dragged to its grave by Trump. I can't say I'm sorry, but democracies are rarely healthy when in a two party syatem one sides collapses.

Hopefully after some time someone will build a saner conseevative/libertarian party in the US. But it might take a while.

That seems to be the conventional wisdom, but I would be shocked if he gets anywhere with this nonsense. It's going to end up in court where I expect it will die. IMO this is more likely a postponed defeat than a constitution -breaking power move.

"I didn't need to do this," says President Dumbfuck while declaring a national emergency, thus ensuring that everyone knows by his own admission that it's not an emergency. As if the threat wasn't flaccid enough this retard can't help but trip on his own tie and plant face-first into cow shit.

Sunder wrote: ↑
"I didn't need to do this," says President Dumbfuck while declaring a national emergency, thus ensuring that everyone knows by his own admission that it's not an emergency. As if the threat wasn't flaccid enough this retard can't help but trip on his own tie and plant face-first into cow shit.

All the while, we are assured it is 4th Dimensional Chess, far past our puny understanding. Often by people that would fail to identify even standard chess pieces.

Sunder wrote: ↑
"I didn't need to do this," says President Dumbfuck while declaring a national emergency, thus ensuring that everyone knows by his own admission that it's not an emergency. As if the threat wasn't flaccid enough this retard can't help but trip on his own tie and plant face-first into cow shit.

All the while, we are assured it is 4th Dimensional Chess, far past our puny understanding. Often by people that would fail to identify even standard chess pieces.